Is BYOD eligibility checker broken?

Whiz Kid

Re: Is BYOD eligibility checker broken?

The eligibility checker is returning a 503 Service Unavailable http status code regardless of what IMEI (even 1234 etc etc), phone number, or zip is entered. Pull up the network tab of your browser's dev tools to confirm the problem, but at the moment it doesn't matter if you have an eligible device or not - you'll always get that ridiculous "Oopsie I'm a bad front-end developer"[*] generic catch-all error until they restart the back-end verification service. Guess I'm calling VM in the morning because I have four eligible phones.

 

[*] Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to return THAT as a generic error message for what I'm assuming is a very popular time-limited offer? The form doesn't even rate-limit or reset after submit so all that error message accomplishes is to push even more traffic to an already overloaded server - with the added bonus of frustrating potential customers.

Agent

Re: Is BYOD eligibility checker broken?

Hi frontend! Our online eligibility checker seems to be operational right now. Have you tried checking again? If so, how did that go? We'd like to know. -Edwin R.

Heavy Hitter

Re: Is BYOD eligibility checker broken?

Definitely broken but the reps will just keep repeating that your phone is not eligible because they have blind trust in the system and can't imagine the system being broken. I bought my phone from Virgin and had no issues, but the BYOD people aren't having good luck despite being eligible, compatible, etc.
Agent

Re: Is BYOD eligibility checker broken?

Hey there, klixa! So sorry to hear about this experience. We want to help! Please send us a private message so we can further assist you.

Wizard

Re: Is BYOD eligibility checker broken?

I had the following experience:

1) checked one sim free iPhone 6s+ what was not activated and it passed and activated immediately

 

2) checked an  iPhone 6s that did not pass.  I noted there are a list of supported iPhones and the 6s is not included.

 

So in my experience, the checker provided correct results.